The National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) has firmly denied compensation to residents evicted from the Lubigi wetland, citing legal provisions that classify their occupation as illegal, sparking heated debate in Parliament.
The National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) has refused calls from Parliament to compensate residents evicted from the Lubigi wetland, reinforcing its stance that the law does not support compensation for those deemed to have illegally occupied the area.
This declaration has intensified the ongoing debate about the handling of evictions and the protection of environmental spaces in Uganda.
"The law deems all households issued with restoration orders offenders," stated Sarah Naigaga, NEMA's Legal Affairs Officer, during her appearance before Parliament's Committee of Commissions, Statutory Authorities, and State Enterprises (COSASE).
"For that reason, we have deemed restoration as an enforcement action. It doesn't derive interest or title of the areas restored to NEMA but rather works to protect the environment for the common good of all, including those affected by the resolution. We have therefore not made any compensation to the persons affected."Naigaga's remarks were in response to questions from Medard Sseggona, Chairperson of COSASE, who pressed NEMA for updates on the status of the evicted residents.
Sseggona highlighted concerns about the transparency and fairness of the evictions.
"I did request the Clerk to write to the Executive Director of NEMA, and the letter was written on 20th June 2024, wherein we asked NEMA to update this Committee on the list and number of persons evicted, the time the affected persons had been in those areas, and why some occupants were left out, which may be seen as selective application of the law," he said.
The evictions in Lubigi wetland, spanning Kampala and Wakiso districts, have been a contentious issue, drawing criticism from affected residents and some MPs.
Critics argue that NEMA's actions were abrupt and lacked adequate prior notice, exacerbating the plight of those displaced.
"Why did NEMA allow those people to construct those spaces and then came in at the 11th hour to do the demolition?"
Sseggona questioned.NEMA's stance, however, is rooted in its mandate to safeguard the environment. Naigaga explained that the decision to enforce restoration orders was made to protect the wetland for the broader public good.
"The question of compensating the people affected by the restoration exercise begs for the consideration of whether the activities that attracted the restoration were legal and permitted," she said.
Allan Mayanja, MP for Nakaseke Central, further probed NEMA on the apparent inconsistency in the application of the law.
"When you see the selective application of the law, you are setting it categorically that some infrastructure in wetlands was established with due process of approval. Can we have a list of some of the infrastructure you are talking about?" he asked.
NEMA's firm stance has raised broader questions about environmental governance and the balance between development and conservation.
While the agency emphasizes the importance of protecting Uganda's natural resources, the affected residents and their representatives in Parliament argue for a more humane approach that considers the social and economic impact of such enforcement actions.
As the debate continues, it is clear that the issue of evictions from protected areas like Lubigi wetland is far from resolved.
The challenge remains for the government and its agencies to find a way to enforce environmental laws while addressing the legitimate concerns of displaced citizens.
